"Bert Huijben" <b...@qqmail.nl> writes: Thanks! Some of my questions may not have been very clear, there may have been confusion between "Subversion locks" and "SQLite locks", but your answers were good enough.
> An atomic transaction which checks the existance of a write lock inside a > sqlite transaction can't be interrupted by another process taking the write > lock.. As that would require breaking the sqlite transaction. The transaction ensures there is no other write lock, or it has its own write lock or whatever, and the transaction only completes if it's true. That sounds plausible. It's not how the current write lock checking occurs is it? At present the code checks a boolean flag in the PDH struct. > I agree that we should be able to take some shortcuts in the transition > period towards WC-NG, because keeping all guarantees up (around loggy as > poor mans transaction, etc.) takes an insane amount of extra work that can > be /dev/null-ed a few weeks later, when the working queue items and pristine > handling replace most of the loggy stuff. Are the shortcuts listed anywhere? How close are we to centralised metadata? I'm still not sure what I should do about code that tries to open an sqlite database that no longer exists. Would it be sensible to make that "not an error" on the basis that it is one of the shortcuts? -- Philip
